Although a Mass Dem, I've always respected Secretary of State Bill Galvin, but after his lecture to Senator Elect Scott Brown he showed his true colors and now I want to know why it took longer than the stipulated 10 days to certify the election.

Galvin speaking at the Governor's Council Mtg today:

The final step in the process required the signature of Secretary of State William F. Galvin, who addressed what he described as "unfounded speculation" about a delay in certification before he picked up a pen.

"There has been a diligent effort on behalf of all election officials to honor the rights of Massachusetts' voters," said Galvin, a Democrat. "I think this process is about honoring the rights of the majority. So before I affix my signature to this, I'd like to call on Senator Brown to respect the rights of the majority. … I hope we will be able to see an up or down vote on all the nominations of President Obama and that the rights of the majority as they have been respected here are respected in the United States Senate."

We all know that if Coakley had won she would have been sworn in the next day. Brown was accepting of the fact that all parties were going to play out the process as long as posible, until he was notified that the Activist Dems were trying to push some tight votes through before he was certified. Brown who general supports the needs of the developmentally challenged was energized over the Dems chicanery so he demanded, rightfully so to be certified and sworn in today.

Joe, I have been calling for this since the election. The talking points the left will throw out is that Senate rules "require" 15 days etc.

The fact is the Senate rules are very simple... They will seat the Senator elect as soon as the state gives them the authority to do so. In other words a letter certifying the results OR a letter from the SoS and Governor stating the results are not in doubt and the formalities of the state should not hinder the seating of the Senator. This option is the option they used to seat Kennedy in 1962 and Tsongas in 2007. Both several days before the election was "certified".

Damain, Brown didn't ask to be seated on Feb. 11th. Galvin told him it could take that long to certify the election. He went to DC to get assurances from Reid that they wouldn't try to push any legislation through during this period. Reid promised. THEN they tried to push several significant things through and Brown then demanded it be expedited.

Galvin and Cadillac could have sent a letter with Brown on Jan. 21 saying basically he won and should be seated, the certificate will be sent at a latter date. This is what they did with Tsongas. You tell me what the difference is? And don't say House Vs Senate. They have the same rules... It is up to the states...

Mass law states certification can take up to fifteen days following the election. Today is day 13 of that process, correct? Galvin advised Brown of that and Brown made his plans to be certified on the 11th noting that he would use the time to get his staff in Boston and Washington in place and just a few days ago he told the Globe he only had a portion of his DC staff hired.

Furthermore, despite his request to move up the time table there has been no allegation of misconduct by the Senator himself, which he would certainly be entitled to do if he felt so inclined. So again, why would anyone be investigated?

It's done, Brown is in, "Marsha" isn't, the people have spoken, Galvin, Patrtick, and a bunch of others will have their day this November. The system worked, it will work again if the people see it fit.

If Martha had eeked out a victory by a few hundred votes after a recount, then I might be a little suspicious of good ol' Bill and his cronies.

Mass law states certification can take up to fifteen days following the election. Today is day 13 of that process, correct? Galvin advised Brown of that and Brown made his plans to be certified on the 11th noting that he would use the time to get his staff in Boston and Washington in place and just a few days ago he told the Globe he only had a portion of his DC staff hired.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Damain, Today is day 16. 20-31=12 days 1-4=4 days. He talks about "the peoples will" while allowing an UNELECTED appointee to sit for 16 days in the US Senate when he could have moved to have the ELECTED Senator seated 14 days ago. Remember that equal protection under the law? D=2 days voting in DC. R= 17 days voting in DC. Nah nothing here! Curious people want to know....

I just think the Democrats were playing politics "as usual" and stretched this whole process out as long as possible so they could get a couple more bills passed such as raising the debt ceiling by a trillion dollars. That vote passed by one vote ......hmmmmmmm.....I wonder who placed a deciding vote? Paul Kirk, the interim Senator from Massachusetts that nobody voted for?????

What I would like to see is a process that the day of an election, the seat which is being voted on to be filled in made inactive/vacant and once the results are in or once one side concedes to the other then the winner is certified the next day, sworn in and seated. Therefore, ended all efforts to politik and delay the election result so it can favor one side or the other. Of course, if the seat is highly contested in a extremely close election no votes should be placed by anyone representing that seat until a winner is certified to be the winner of the election.

Brat, I don't know if weekends count in the equation, my assumption would be business days go towards the count not calender days in which case the number is 13 as I said. But if they are paying workers time and a half for Saturdays and double time for Sundays to tally the count then I would be surprised.

Either way, Brown won and has been certified so I am not sure why there is fight that needs to be picked since, as I said previously, Brown has not raised any objection to the timing.

Are there any decisions in the senate that they would try to exclude Brown from? I can't think of any major issues that his vote would have impacted. He's in now, so why go through expensive investigation and litigation? Nothing would happen except cost to taxpayers.

Geesh relax......... he's on his way to Washington already.....a week early..............so he can vote against O's Labor nominee.............yup the working man votes for the golden boy, the golden boy goes to DC and votes against the policies and people that will actually help the working man........when will people learn?

We (Brown Supporters) aren't in a rush to be disappointed. We (the vast middle)are excited for what we believe will be the start of hope and change to the middle. We need to wrestle the control away from the LW Progressive Activists and be careful not to drop control into the laps of GOP RW social conservatives.

Sure sounds like you are, Joe. I'm just trying to let you down easy. Hope and Change have lots of enemies out there, and they don't play by the rules.

Don't fool yourself into thinking this is different. It might very well be, but the odds are against it. Learning how to square one's expectations with one's enthusiasm could be the most important lesson in politics...one that many on both the angry right/bitter left haven't learned yet.

From my perspective just slowing down the activist dems with a no vote is a start. If the dems want to shift to the middle, I'll support Brown with his promised middle vote. In the mean time I'm OK with grid lock as it means no more damage can be done. Once we have the fall elections and many of the extreme left are voted out, then the real change can begin. I can wait for that.

Are there any decisions in the senate that they would try to exclude Brown from? I can't think of any major issues that his vote would have impacted. He's in now, so why go through expensive investigation and litigation? Nothing would happen except cost to taxpayers.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------They raised the debt ceiling after assuring Brown they wouldn't bring the vote. They tried to ram through 2 VERY controversial appointments after saying they wouldn't. You are not paying attention...

Brat, I don't know if weekends count in the equation, my assumption would be business days go towards the count not calender days in which case the number is 13 as I said. But if they are paying workers time and a half for Saturdays and double time for Sundays to tally the count then I would be surprised. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------It is 15 days not business days. Most cities and towns certified their results within days. My town certified the results on the 20th. The final total was certified at a later date. To certify a race the total of victory for one candidate must be greater than the margin of error (I think set at .5% of the vote) and the lead must be greater than the number of absentee and military ballots out. There were something like 20,000 of those ballots. Brown won by over 100,000 votes. That is why Coakley conceded the race so early. Bottom line is if Galvin had the best interest of the majority as he claims and not the Democrat party, Brown would have been sworn in on Jan. 21. This shows he is playing politics in a position that is supposed to be about fairness and above the fray.

Pfft. Playing politics is what Norm Coleman pulled in Minnesota preventing Al Franken from being seated for 6 months. And to be sure the margins of that particular election were close enough to warrant a fight but Coleman kep going even after Franken's margin had GROWN and only stopped once a court rejected his appeal. That was playing plotics because the GOP was trying to temporarily stop the bleeding from getting hammered on election day. Although I am sure your take on that won't be anything close to your views on this 13 or 16 day certification process. Right?

Again, because you seem to want to fight a battle that even the candidate himself isn't engaged in...if there was an issue why hasn't Brown said something? Because if as you suggest shenanigans were being pulled then the newest GOP savior was gamed by a lowly Sec of State from a small New England state. And if that is the case then one must wonder how will he do in the shark tank that is DC.

Until Massachusetts throws out all their Democrats corrption will still reign. Once you get all Republicans you better watch them also and throw out the first one who thinks the people dont know what is going on. Your Democrats are terrible! Barney Frank destroyed Americans economy virtually by himself by forcing banks to take all those toxic loans Frank knew could never be paid off. Be more demanding of who you elect! If they are abusing the country throw them out! Its good to let in fresh air every now and then in all aspects of ones life. Barney Frank needs a big fresh air door opened and him shown the way out........